Let me assure you, ACB have no clue what they are doing with their linux box either - at least when I call them and ask about their server, the answer I got was "well, it just sits here" --David At 08:19 PM 9/21/2002 -0400, you wrote: >Hi Darrell, > >That's very true, Darrell, but what I'm objecting to is that the >original message in the thread stated that telnet and the BBS features >of their system would no longer be available. This, I felt was short >changing some of their members, and I thought it was too bad. I >wanted the techies to be more knowledgeable so that their members >wouldn't have to give up telnet or BBS access. > ><smile> No, I wasn't suggesting that the end users start using Linux >out of the box, not at all. What I was hoping to see was some >evidence that they wanted to keep things as accessible as possible and >keep the change-over as seamless as possible, thereby not losing any >of their members. Apparently, losing membership access is not >important. I think that is a shame, especially when it is a consumer >based organization. the offhand "we're sorry if this inconveniences >anyone..." is a callous and a noncaring way to treat people, any >people, and especially those who count on that particular means of >access. > >For some, it may be their only way to talk with others and to learn >about the world outside their own surcomscribed lives. I think that >the techies who run the machines at that organization would be >astonished at the kinds of people who access their services and if >they knew more about their constituency, they might not take such a >cavalier attitude toward scrapping the telnet and the bbs services. > >I don't access their services, but as a netizen of some years, and one >familiar with online communities, I can safely say that this BBS, >whatever it is, is an online community and there are probably members >of that community who need it. They may not be the vocal members, >they are probably the lurkers in the background who come on, take part >in the community and consider it to be their home. There may be >others for whom this online community makes the difference between >sanity and not. > >One doesn't destroy a community thoughtlessly with a paragraph or two >couched in pretty phrases, not unless an alternative is offered. > >that is why the topic came up. That is why I started this discussion. >That is why I wrote to the original poster of the forwarded msg to ask >about SSH to ask about alternatives. I repeat. You can not destroy a >community thoughtlessly. > >Ann P. > >sy>>>>> "Darrell" == Darrell Shandrow <nu7i at azboss.net> writes: > > Darrell> Hi Ann, Keep in mind that Linux is actually not > Darrell> appropriate for most users, especially the command-line > Darrell> interface. Most people want their technology to be > Darrell> simple to operate. They're not interested in how the > Darrell> computer works or anything of that sort. They just want > Darrell> to use it to get work done! > > >-- > Ann K. Parsons >email: akp at eznet.net ICQ Number: 33006854 >WEB SITE: http://home.eznet.net/~akp >"All that is gold does not glitter. Not all those who wander are lost." JRRT > > > >_______________________________________________ >Speakup mailing list >Speakup at braille.uwo.ca >http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
